GerryShedd
Super Moderator
Spreading the Blast over a longer time makes it less likely that counties will be able to sign overseas stars but I agree that a regular slot has an appeal, as does supporters not having to cram in and pay for too many games in a short time.
For me, everything comes back to the fact that we are all tiptoeing round the giant elephant in the room known as The Hundred, which is supposedly untouchable.
LeicesterExile wrote:
There might be 19000 at the 16.4 game but how many tickets were actually sold?
As for a stadium with a roof - how high would the roof need to be or would it be if it hit the roof then to be out the fielder would have to catch the ball one handed!!!
Regarding a Stadium with a roof, I did see two ODIs between Australia and South Africa at the Dockland Stadium in Melbourne with the roof closed about 20 years ago. It's where the Melbourne Renegades play in the Big Bash. I can't remember what the local rule is about hitting the roof. I have long thought that all the money spent making grounds like Cardiff and Durham fit for international cricket could have been spent creating one or more indoor stadia. They used drop-in pitches at the Docklands Stadium. I know they had problems getting the outfield grass to grow well but I assume that the technology has improved in the last 20 years.
Anyway, I can't see MCC selling Lord's and building a new ground any time soon (or ever).
Another interesting perspective on the English cricketing calendar:
https://wisdenblog.wordpress.com/2022/03/02/the-thick-end-of-the-wedge/
That's great news for Chris. I see that Olly Stone is also in the squad - ironic that the two of them are going to be fit just as the Bears' season ends. But good luck to them!
Interesting that Kent have made the decision that they will select for the RLODC Final from the same squad of players that got them to the final - in other words, not selecting any players who were in the Hundred or otherwise not available. That means that Daniel Bell-Drummond, Zak Crawley, Fred Klaassen, Matt Milnes, Jack Leaning, Sam Billings and Jordan Cox will all miss out.
Will Lancashire do the same?
The Club's report seems to take the approach of the less said, the better:
https://edgbaston.com/fixtures/second-xi/northamptonshire-second-xi-vs-warwickshire-second-xi-29-august-2022/#match-match-reports
It also glosses over the fact that, in addition to Norwell, Garrett, Ethan Brookes and Johal played, all of whom are bowlers with first team experience.
The lack of progress amongst the young bowlers must be staring the senior coaching staff in the face.
My concern is that any decisions about T20, The Hundred and 50 over cricket that may be decided this September could well restrict the options for red ball cricket.
A defeat by an innings and 277 runs is more than a little bit shocking and not to be explained by the fact that Northants put out a reasonably strong side·
Having just watched the last hour of the Hants v Kent semi-final, the craziest decision of the year is for Kent not to be offering Darren Stevens a new contract - 84 off 65 balls to see Kent home by three wickets with an over left.
Maybe they will do what they did last time and change their minds - and possibly they do it just to get him psyched up to perform these miracles.
Northants are giving Warwickshire an absolute hammering.
I agree that the tone of this statement is much better than past offerings.
I hope that the ECB and some of the counties have had a bit of a wake-up call because of the response from supporters and members across the country. The ECB offered lots of money to counties to vote for The Hundred and may have thought that (with the exception of Surrey, who voted against) they could count on them to roll over again when asked. And some of them would have done but for the outcry from members and supporters.
I do note that there is reference to a vote in September so although the County Championship is being left at 14 matches for 2023, the vote in September could well propose changes for 2024 onwards so there is not too long to make views known.
Some of the problems with the review are that it accepts that The Hundred is set in place until 2028 and describes it as "a clear best vs. best competition", ignoring the fact that no other country in the world plays the 100 format and, regardless of whether or not you have the best players playing, if the format is rubbish, you will get rubbish cricket.
Despite the guarantee of no reduction in County Championship games for 2023, there is a clear assumption that less cricket needs to be played. If the 100 is ring-fenced from this reduction, it has to be the Championship, the 50 over competition and/or the Blast that get reduced.
Anyway, there is clearly going to be a lively and (hopefully) largely public debate.
Andrew Strauss's blog confirms:
"It will be important the First-Class Counties have the appropriate time to consider the final recommendations and to properly engage with their stakeholders. The First-Class County Chairs Representative Board has therefore proposed the 2023 LV= Insurance County Championship remains at 14 matches for each county."
Although the ECB is saying that it wants to "give counties the opportunity to further consult with players, members and other key stakeholders," the problem is not that they haven't already had the opportunity to consult but that they haven't done it. Let's hope that, if they have been granted a further opportunity, they take advantage of it.
According to a report in The Cricketer:
"The County Championship fixture list is set to remain at 14 fixtures per side in 2023.
The ongoing high-performance review has been assessing where structural changes are required in the English domestic game, in an effort to narrow the gap between county cricket and the international arena.
As part of the review, a reduction of the number of red-ball games is believed to have been under discussion, but such a course of action is highly unlikely to be implemented next season, as the ECB seeks to give counties the opportunity to further consult with players, members and other key stakeholders."
If true, that's good news as far as it goes.
I have posted mine today.
Article by Tanya Aldred here:
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2022/aug/24/lancashires-awkward-squad-ready-to-battle-for-county-crickets-future
I looked back at the interview I did four years ago with the then Chairman Norman Gascoigne about the proposed changes in the Club rules. I asked him:
“What powers will members still have? Let’s suppose, entirely hypothetically, that the ECB proposed to scrap the County Championship and replace it with a 10 overs a side competition. The members would for sure be up in arms in opposition to this; but what if the word from Edgbaston was that the Club would support the proposals? What could the Members do now (under the existing Club rules) to change the Club’s line; and what will they be able to do if the governance changes go through?”
“There won’t really be any difference,” replied Norman. “In both situations, the higher of 250 members or 5% of the club membership would be needed in order for a Special General Meeting to be convened. At the meeting a proposal could be put forward for a vote of no confidence. Or a resolution could be raised for the Board to vote against the ECB proposals. If the resolution was passed, the Board would be bound by it.”
Maybe my hypothetical question wasn't so far off the mark.